Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Coltivated

Would you trade pick 15 for Jaylon smith

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Totally understood, just because a doctor prescribes something doesn't mean it's "safe." But we've demonized anything on the banned list simply because it's on the banned list. An olympian can be disqualified for taking cold medicine, and then they're labeled a cheater. I think it's too much. JMO

 

No question there are people abusing certain substances, or hiding behind more innocuous substances when they're really taking more serious things (like the Adderall excuse, about which some players were clearly lying).

 

And yes, an ingestible is different from an appliance, but an appliance is still a performance enhancer, in theory. Certain swimsuits have been banned from certain competitions, being called "technological doping." Now we're talking about a potentially spring or pump assisted foot brace, which could theoretically enhance an athlete's performance. It's a stretch for football, with the starts and stops, change of direction, jumping, etc., but long distance running and other more predictable and consistent actions would potentially be enhanced by that kind of device.

 

I'm off on a tangent, for sure.

 

 

Again great discussion points.  So I'd like to expand on my points as well.

 

I once ran across this (which likely set me on my path to my feelings) and hunted it back down. I'll post it here-

 

"In football and other violent contact sports, it does. Take human growth hormone, chase it with regular doses of synthetic testosterone, pop mind-revving stimulants on game days and you create human torpedoes — “gigantic attack robots,” one anti-doping expert calls them — that crash into each other for three hours on any given Sunday. The players are bigger, faster, meaner, which makes the collisions, Newton’s second law of motion tells us, that much fiercer.

 

F = m x a. Force equals mass times acceleration.

 

Now consider the frightening revelations about concussions in football, about the anguish and destruction wrought on families by the degenerative brain disorder known as CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy), about the relationship between testosterone-fueled players and domestic violence, about the potential for drugs to exacerbate the damage, and you can make a compelling argument that football should have the most vigilant, foolproof, impermeable performance-enhancing drug program."

 

Not every NFL p[layer dopes, thus susceptible to career ending injury from an "Attack Robot".

 

In this regard, Lance Armstrong (or whatever, Olympian, etc...) dopes to extremes measures.  He rides up the French Alps faster than others, gets fame and fortune.  What damage has he caused others?  A student pops Adderall and crams for finals.  what damage is caused to others?  I take this into consideration... look at big picture, then small picture. weigh them out. Not saying you are wrong, but disclosing a few reasons for where I am coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

 

Again great discussion points.  So I'd like to expand on my points as well.

 

I once ran across this (which likely set me on my path to my feelings) and hunted it back down. I'll post it here-

 

"In football and other violent contact sports, it does. Take human growth hormone, chase it with regular doses of synthetic testosterone, pop mind-revving stimulants on game days and you create human torpedoes — “gigantic attack robots,” one anti-doping expert calls them — that crash into each other for three hours on any given Sunday. The players are bigger, faster, meaner, which makes the collisions, Newton’s second law of motion tells us, that much fiercer.

 

F = m x a. Force equals mass times acceleration.

 

Now consider the frightening revelations about concussions in football, about the anguish and destruction wrought on families by the degenerative brain disorder known as CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy), about the relationship between testosterone-fueled players and domestic violence, about the potential for drugs to exacerbate the damage, and you can make a compelling argument that football should have the most vigilant, foolproof, impermeable performance-enhancing drug program."

 

Not every NFL p[layer dopes, thus susceptible to career ending injury from an "Attack Robot".

 

In this regard, Lance Armstrong (or whatever, Olympian, etc...) dopes to extremes measures.  He rides up the French Alps faster than others, gets fame and fortune.  What damage has he caused others?  A student pops Adderall and crams for finals.  what damage is caused to others?  I take this into consideration... look at big picture, then small picture. weigh them out. Not saying you are wrong, but disclosing a few reasons for where I am coming from.

 

There are definite safety issues. I'm not advocating making all PEDs legal. And my stance isn't specific to the NFL. In non contact sports, performance enhancers don't have a direct impact on any other participant. The snowball effect is a different story, as more people feel compelled to use PEDs to avoid being left behind.

 

But separate from safety, from a fan standpoint, the main push against athletes using PEDs is that they're cheating. I find that disingenuous. One student taking Adderall is getting an advantage over another student who doesn't take Adderall. But they aren't drug tested when they show up for finals, or a job interview, and they aren't suspended or blacklisted for doing it. If you compete in a spelling bee or a trivia competition or whatever, I don't believe you're drug tested. If you're a sports writer taking some substance to meet your deadline, or a TV sports reporter taking something to help you stay up for your show, you're taking PEDs, and no one ever knows.

 

But these white collar enhancements can separate one participant from the next, leading to career success, even fortune and fame. And then those people can stand on a soapbox and call Mark McGwire a cheater and refuse to cast a HOF vote for him.

 

Again, not arguing that lying and cheating and taking steroids are fine. I'm the first one to say that if you know the rules and intentionally break them, you deserve whatever consequences you're dealt. I don't have any sympathy for athletes who have been caught using PEDs. I just disagree with the way it's all black or white, I think the policies are overly restrictive at times, and I think there's an inherent hypocrisy and dishonesty with the way these policies are applied and especially reported on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

There are definite safety issues. I'm not advocating making all PEDs legal. And my stance isn't specific to the NFL. In non contact sports, performance enhancers don't have a direct impact on any other participant. The snowball effect is a different story, as more people feel compelled to use PEDs to avoid being left behind.

 

But separate from safety, from a fan standpoint, the main push against athletes using PEDs is that they're cheating. I find that disingenuous. One student taking Adderall is getting an advantage over another student who doesn't take Adderall. But they aren't drug tested when they show up for finals, or a job interview, and they aren't suspended or blacklisted for doing it. If you compete in a spelling bee or a trivia competition or whatever, I don't believe you're drug tested. If you're a sports writer taking some substance to meet your deadline, or a TV sports reporter taking something to help you stay up for your show, you're taking PEDs, and no one ever knows.

 

But these white collar enhancements can separate one participant from the next, leading to career success, even fortune and fame. And then those people can stand on a soapbox and call Mark McGwire a cheater and refuse to cast a HOF vote for him.

 

Again, not arguing that lying and cheating and taking steroids are fine. I'm the first one to say that if you know the rules and intentionally break them, you deserve whatever consequences you're dealt. I don't have any sympathy for athletes who have been caught using PEDs. I just disagree with the way it's all black or white, I think the policies are overly restrictive at times, and I think there's an inherent hypocrisy and dishonesty with the way these policies are applied and especially reported on.

 

Understood.  But it now begs the question... who and how often do you test the general public for "cheaters" using un-prescribed amphetamines or Meth or whatever... What does society gain?

 

In Mark McGwires (and his compadres, Sosa Bonds, Palmiero, etc...) case- people say his use skewed the sacred Baseball stats and (should have) asterisked many records. May have given his team wins they might not have earned, etc...

 

What does scociety get from keeping John Candleburner form ppoping some speed and cramming for / taking some finals? Or something along the way? 

 

In the case NFL, less chance for injury to the ingesting player, and his (especially non ingesting) opponent, if he is not as Big, Strong, and Fast as they are using PED's.

 

I feel those that are in the spotlight, getting paid exorbitant amounts, or given high responsibility have a higher bar to clear than others- responsibility commiserate with reward. Thus testing for them.

 

Some Companies want to be sure of what they are getting, and the final puzzle piece may be a test for substances of abuse (along with a Social Media search, etc...)

 

I wish nobody did illegal substances, period.  but that's not realistic. Nor is testing everybody.  We do the best we can, and mine is prioritize the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...